Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Yeah, I see what you mean. I just found that in the last land auction, I just wanted *a* land unit, not even looking at what the individual ones were, yet I always ended up getting outbid to the point where I felt it wasn't worth it to try to bid anymore. Besides, most players were simply bidding on all at once. On 4/12/2018 9:50 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Here's my argument on why separate land auctions are better: Imagine that land unit 1 has a Rank 4 facility on it, but land unit 2 has nothing. More people will bid on land unit 1. This is completely justified since land unit 1 is definitely more valuable than land unit 2. So someone might get land unit 2 for really cheaply, but that's because it's a worse land unit. Now imagine land unit 3 is exactly the same as land unit 2 but is on the complete other side of the map. Hypothetical player A already owns two adjacent land units to land unit 3, but has nothing near land unit 2. Logically, land unit 3 is less valuable than land unit 2 to hypothetical player A. Now, imagine hypothetical player B just barely joined, so any land is good by em. E'll notice that hypothetical player A will probably want to take land unit 3. E'll also notice that A is a lot richer than em and it wouldn't be productive for em to try and bid up A because e would lose. So B decides to focus on bidding up land unit 2. Hypothetical player C comes along. C is very wealthy, and is not looking to get any more land this time. But, being the trickster that e is, e decides to bid up land unit 2 because e knows A wants it really badly. This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could *try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what you get. Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, for instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to strategize in auctions for them. Or I could be wrong. As always, I'm open to argument, so if someone has a reason why single land auctions are better, please explain them to me. On 4/12/2018 7:09 PM, ATMunn wrote: Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would probably prefer it to be a single auction. On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AU
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate > auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in > the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't > strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could > *try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what you > get. > > Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, for > instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the > differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data > surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to > strategize in auctions for them. I was very specifically aiming to get o (second in order), who had notably more currency that anyone one - I didn't notice that when I initiated the auction. There is quite usable strategy, although it's quite a different sort of set of moves, as you're trading off position in a ranking versus price - try it a few times it's quite interesting to game. (While I prefer multi-lot auctions personally, I don't mind a diversity of gameplay either so don't have a strong opinion for land auctions. I particularly like multi-lot auctions where the final price is the lowest winning price - quite an interesting game to get the lowest price while staying in the top N bidders. Though that requires lots to be 100% identical to be fair).
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Here's my argument on why separate land auctions are better: Imagine that land unit 1 has a Rank 4 facility on it, but land unit 2 has nothing. More people will bid on land unit 1. This is completely justified since land unit 1 is definitely more valuable than land unit 2. So someone might get land unit 2 for really cheaply, but that's because it's a worse land unit. Now imagine land unit 3 is exactly the same as land unit 2 but is on the complete other side of the map. Hypothetical player A already owns two adjacent land units to land unit 3, but has nothing near land unit 2. Logically, land unit 3 is less valuable than land unit 2 to hypothetical player A. Now, imagine hypothetical player B just barely joined, so any land is good by em. E'll notice that hypothetical player A will probably want to take land unit 3. E'll also notice that A is a lot richer than em and it wouldn't be productive for em to try and bid up A because e would lose. So B decides to focus on bidding up land unit 2. Hypothetical player C comes along. C is very wealthy, and is not looking to get any more land this time. But, being the trickster that e is, e decides to bid up land unit 2 because e knows A wants it really badly. This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't strategize and attempt to get one specific unit. Well, I mean, you could *try*, but in the end, you actually have very little control over what you get. Single auctions work for lots that are similar to one another. Zombies, for instance. You most likely won't care which one you get, because the differences between zombies are slight. Land units have complex data surrounding them, and it is therefore crucial that players are able to strategize in auctions for them. Or I could be wrong. As always, I'm open to argument, so if someone has a reason why single land auctions are better, please explain them to me. On 4/12/2018 7:09 PM, ATMunn wrote: Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would probably prefer it to be a single auction. On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This is the second real land auction. There are currently 5 public, unp
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would probably prefer it to be a single auction. On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This is the second real land auction. There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in existence. All 5 are put up for auction. For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) -- ~Corona
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
I was to choose 5 land units and set them as separate lots in the same auction. Even if two of the auctions had valid lots, both of them fail to have the necessary amount of lots for the situation. Therefore, by my interpretation, both auctions are invalid. On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Do you suppose you started one (the first accurate one?) or do you think the whole thing failed? Not sure myself... On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my statement: This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* five separate auctions. On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: You CANNOT do that. The rule doesn't allow you to. So you failed to initiate five. You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't. Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe the collection was so ambiguous it all failed. On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions. On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This is the second real land auction. There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in existence. All 5 are put up for auction. For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) -- ~Corona --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Trigon -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Do you suppose you started one (the first accurate one?) or do you think the whole thing failed? Not sure myself... On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my > statement: > > This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually > mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. > I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not > reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for > five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* five separate auctions. > > On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > You CANNOT do that. The rule doesn't allow you to. So you failed to > > initiate five. You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't. > > Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe > > the collection was so ambiguous it all failed. > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't > > > actually > > > mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the > > > proposal. > > > I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not > > > reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called > > > for > > > five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions. > > > > > > On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? > > > > That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how > > > > people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. > > > > (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). > > > > > > > > I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer > > > > land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there > > > > a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones > > > > > just never began in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just > > > > > > terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's > > > > > > > statement > > > > > > > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is > > > > > > > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is > > > > > > > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. > > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the > > > > > > > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction > > > > > > > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule > > > > > > > 2552). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My interpretation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". > > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > > do not have > > > > > > > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > auction. > > > > > > > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > obligation > > > > > > > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer > > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > satisfy). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the land > > > > > > > > > units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > wanting > > > > > > > > > to do work to fix it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- > > > > > > > > > > actually black > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- > > > > > > > > > > actuall
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my statement: This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for five separate auctions, *attempted to initiate* five separate auctions. On 4/12/2018 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: You CANNOT do that. The rule doesn't allow you to. So you failed to initiate five. You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't. Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe the collection was so ambiguous it all failed. On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions. On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This is the second real land auction. There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in existence. All 5 are put up for auction. For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) -- ~Corona --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
You CANNOT do that. The rule doesn't allow you to. So you failed to initiate five. You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't. Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe the collection was so ambiguous it all failed. On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually > mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. > I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not > reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for > five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions. > > On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? > > That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how > > people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. > > (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). > > > > I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer > > land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there > > a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones > > > just never began in the first place. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just > > > > terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement > > > > > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is > > > > > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is > > > > > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just > > > > > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the > > > > > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction > > > > > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule > > > > > 2552). > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My interpretation: > > > > > > > > > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You > > > > > > do not have > > > > > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the > > > > > > auction. > > > > > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your > > > > > > obligation > > > > > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer > > > > > > particular > > > > > > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > satisfy). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of > > > > > > > the land > > > > > > > units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but > > > > > > > wanting > > > > > > > to do work to fix it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- > > > > > > > > actually black > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- > > > > > > > > actually black > > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- > > > > > > > > actually white > > > > > > > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the second real land auction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land > > > > > > > > > units in > > > > > > > > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > > > > > > > > auctioneer, > > > > > > > > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that the rules called for five separate auctions, initiated five separate auctions. On 4/12/2018 2:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule 2552). -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My interpretation: You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction. If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot satisfy). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting to do work to fix it. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: This is the second real land auction. There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in existence. All 5 are put up for auction. For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin: AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) -- ~Corona --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -- Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I terminate the ongoing land auction > > I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now. By R2004 you only CAN initiate 1 each week. At least that's my reading of "each Agoran week... the Cartographer CAN and SHALL initiate an auction. For this auction ... the lots are [multiple land units]"
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction? That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened. (R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week). I'm also looking for anything that says the Cartographer CAN transfer land in any circumstances, and all I'm finding is SHALLs. (is there a "SHALL implies CAN" somewhere?) On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones > just never began in the first place. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just > > terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement > >> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is > >> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is > >> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just > >> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the > >> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction > >> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule > >> 2552). > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > My interpretation: > >> > > >> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do > >> > not have > >> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the > >> > auction. > >> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your > >> > obligation > >> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. > >> > > >> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular > >> > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot > >> > satisfy). > >> > > >> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the > >> >> land > >> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but > >> >> wanting > >> >> to do work to fix it. > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: > >> >> > > >> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually > >> >> > black > >> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually > >> >> > black > >> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually > >> >> > white > >> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> >> > > >> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! > >> >> > > >> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley > >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > This is the second real land auction. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in > >> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > >> >> > auctioneer, > >> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) > >> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) > >> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) > >> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > > >> >> > ~Corona > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
> I terminate the ongoing land auction I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 14:33 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule > 2552). > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > My interpretation: > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do > not have > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the > auction. > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your > obligation > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular > > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot > > satisfy). > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the > land > >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but > wanting > >> to do work to fix it. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: > >> > >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: > >> > > >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually > black > >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually > black > >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually > white > >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> > > >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! > >> > > >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley < > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > This is the second real land auction. > >> > > > >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in > >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction. > >> > > > >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > >> > auctioneer, > >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin: > >> > > > >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) > >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) > >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) > >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > ~Corona > >> > > >> >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones just never began in the first place. -Aris On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just > terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement >> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is >> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is >> applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just >> in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the >> lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction >> cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule >> 2552). >> >> -Aris >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > My interpretation: >> > >> > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not >> > have >> > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the >> > auction. >> > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your >> > obligation >> > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. >> > >> > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular >> > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot >> > satisfy). >> > >> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: >> >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land >> >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting >> >> to do work to fix it. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: >> >> >> >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: >> >> > >> >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black >> >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) >> >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black >> >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white >> >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) >> >> > >> >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! >> >> > >> >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > This is the second real land auction. >> >> > > >> >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in >> >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction. >> >> > > >> >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the >> >> > auctioneer, >> >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin: >> >> > > >> >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) >> >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) >> >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) >> >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) >> >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > >> >> > ~Corona >> >> > >> >> >> >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for April week 2
These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4). On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement > that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is > able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots" is > applicable, given that the announced items do not in fact exist. Just > in case, I terminate the ongoing land auction, because some of the > lots are nonexistent and therefore "the Auctioneer of that Auction > cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" (Rule > 2552). > > -Aris > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > My interpretation: > > > > You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not > > have > > a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the > > auction. > > If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your > > obligation > > to transfer by transferring a black land unit at , or not. > > > > (oh, just out of curiosity where does it say you CAN transfer particular > > land units? That wording of that would play into what you can or cannot > > satisfy). > > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land > >> units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting > >> to do work to fix it. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote: > >> > >> > Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and: > >> > > >> > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black > >> > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black > >> > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) <-- actually white > >> > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> > > >> > Gasp! It cannot be! Is it a... SCAM?!?! > >> > > >> > More seriously, does it make the auction initiation invalid? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Reuben Staley > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > This is the second real land auction. > >> > > > >> > > There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in > >> > > existence. All 5 are put up for auction. > >> > > > >> > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > >> > auctioneer, > >> > > and the minimum bid is 1 coin: > >> > > > >> > > AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) > >> > > AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3) > >> > > AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) > >> > > AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +1) > >> > > AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at (+2, +2) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > ~Corona > >> > > >> >
